The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant health care liability case involving Pamela Salas and Dr. John David Rosdeutscher. The court's decision, filed on July 16, 2026, clarifies the timeline for filing refiled claims under the state's Savings Statute, which allows plaintiffs to refile cases within a year after voluntary dismissal. This ruling has implications for how health care liability actions are handled in Tennessee.
The case centers around a health care liability action that Salas initially filed against Dr. Rosdeutscher and Cumberland Plastic Surgery, P.C. in 2018. The court's ruling affects Salas and her legal team as well as the defendants, who argued that the refiled claims were untimely. The outcome is important as it sets a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.
In this case, Pamela Salas filed her original health care liability complaint on May 11, 2018, alleging negligence during her medical treatment in early 2017. After the defendants sought sanctions against her attorneys in December 2019, Salas's legal team filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The trial court granted this dismissal on March 26, 2020, but retained jurisdiction to address the sanctions issue. Over a year later, on April 28, 2021, the court awarded monetary sanctions against Salas's attorneys. Salas then refiled her claims on May 12, 2021, prompting the defendants to file a motion to dismiss, arguing that the refiled case was not filed within the one-year limit set by the Savings Statute.
The trial court initially sided with Salas, ruling that the one-year statute of limitations did not begin until the sanctions order was entered. However, the defendants appealed this decision. The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Andy D. Bennett, ultimately reversed the trial court’s ruling, stating that the Savings Statute began to run on the date of the voluntary dismissal order, not the sanctions order. The court emphasized that the trial court had erred in determining that the saving year commenced with the sanctions order.
The court ruled, "We conclude that the saving year started to run on the date the trial court entered the order of voluntary dismissal, March 26, 2020."
The judges on the panel included Judge Bennett, along with Judges Jeffrey Usman and Valerie L. Smith. The court's opinion clarified that the initial case must be refiled within one year of the voluntary dismissal to meet the requirements of the Savings Statute. The ruling also highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding voluntary dismissals and the timelines that follow.
This ruling has significant implications for future health care liability cases in Tennessee. It reinforces the importance of understanding the timeline for filing claims after a voluntary dismissal. The decision clarifies that the one-year period for refiling begins immediately after the voluntary dismissal order is entered, which could impact many plaintiffs who may be unaware of the strict timelines involved in such cases.
Going forward, this ruling serves as a reminder for plaintiffs and their attorneys to be diligent in understanding and adhering to the procedural requirements in health care liability actions. The decision may also affect how attorneys approach cases involving potential sanctions, as they must now consider the implications of a voluntary dismissal on the statute of limitations for refiled claims.
As for the next steps, it is unclear whether Salas will appeal this decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court. However, the ruling stands as a significant interpretation of the Savings Statute and its application in health care liability cases. There are no related cases pending that directly address this specific issue, but the implications of this ruling may influence future litigation strategies for plaintiffs in similar circumstances.